Curse

Winterclaw · Jul 01, 2009, 08:28 PM // 20:28

In Iran's case, Obama started with very soft talk after it became apparent that the government rigged the election and only started to talk tough after the regime's thugs started killing protesters who were unarmed (note to anti-second amendment people, if it happen there, it can happen here). I mean not even south Florida can mess things up by finding an extra 3 million votes lying around.

In the case of Honduras, he spoke up very quickly after the coup d'etate by the military after the then president decided he was going to run for a third term despite it being constitutionally illegal there.

As I see it there are three big possibilities that I can think of for the wildly divergent responses. The first is Obama or his advisers thought he came off too weak in the first case so he upped his language for the second one. The other option is the Honduras coup scared him because he might be thinking if the US military can come up with some proof that Obama is breaking with the US constitution, they might do the same thing. The final one is that Iran is seeking nukes and has a lot of power in the mid east and Honduras isn't doing the first and doesn't have the second, so he had more leeway for tough talk.

What do you all think?

MMSDome · Jul 01, 2009, 09:28 PM // 21:28

I think Obama is a hypocrite. People like him say that we shouldn't have went to Iraq because it wasn't our war then why are we speaking out against Iran if it isn't any of our business?

Roy_ · Jul 01, 2009, 11:23 PM // 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

In Iran's case, Obama started with very soft talk after it became apparent that the government rigged the election and only started to talk tough after the regime's thugs started killing protesters who were unarmed (note to anti-second amendment people, if it happen there, it can happen here). I mean not even south Florida can mess things up by finding an extra 3 million votes lying around.

In the case of Honduras, he spoke up very quickly after the coup d'etate by the military after the then president decided he was going to run for a third term despite it being constitutionally illegal there.

As I see it there are three big possibilities that I can think of for the wildly divergent responses. The first is Obama or his advisers thought he came off too weak in the first case so he upped his language for the second one. The other option is the Honduras coup scared him because he might be thinking if the US military can come up with some proof that Obama is breaking with the US constitution, they might do the same thing. The final one is that Iran is seeking nukes and has a lot of power in the mid east and Honduras isn't doing the first and doesn't have the second, so he had more leeway for tough talk.

What do you all think?

I think that...

your first point makes alot of sense. He wants too keep his numbers up, (and they are going down fairly quickly) so his advisors will ask him to take a more, shall we say, aggressive...stance, which does, as MMS put it, make him a hypocrite.

your second point will not happen. The United States military will most likely never usurp a president, unless of course, we start too fall into chaos.

your third point also makes sense. The only problem is that it is fairly obvious... but then again alot of what he has done has been predictable... So this might be the case.

DarkFlame · Jul 02, 2009, 01:29 AM // 01:29

His first(soft) response was probably as genuine as he gets. What he said the second time around and continuing with the Honduras coup, is just his advisers pushing him to not appear as such a weakling.

As for Honduras being not as important as Iran, it has very close ties with Venezuela whose oil wealth makes it as important as any other middle east nation. If anything, he's under more pressure to talk a harsh stance since Venezuela is making a fuss over it.

Snow Bunny · Jul 02, 2009, 11:16 AM // 11:16

His response to Iran was diplomatically speaking about as good as you can get.

He was soft-spoken in that the United States has no business in Iran's affairs. He condemned the violence in Iran, and lamented the fact that rioting ended up in gun violence.

With regards to Honduras, I think there's a lot more to it than we know, and I believe he was subscribing to the 2-wrongs-don't-make-a-right school of moral thought...which is a decent school.

Iraq posed no bloody threat to us. Bush wanted a war and used faulty intelligence and a vendetta from 1990 to get it. He spoke out against the violence used against a legitimate protest.

I think he's an asshat for his goddamn medical care legislation and the fact that he bailed out banks and businesses, but in terms of foreign policy he's doing very well.

Lord Sojar · Jul 07, 2009, 03:57 PM // 15:57

The US is permitted to talk about anyone we like.

As for Obama breaking the Constitution... let's reflect back shall we...

I agree with Snow on this, his response was excellent in regards to diplomacy. Sometimes, you don't need a gun to get things done.

Shursh · Jul 07, 2009, 05:37 PM // 17:37

i think he is a politician.

i also think all politicians are full of RED ENGINE.

MMSDome · Jul 07, 2009, 06:39 PM // 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Iraq posed no bloody threat to us. Bush wanted a war and used faulty intelligence and a vendetta from 1990 to get it. He spoke out against the violence used against a legitimate protest.

He used faulty intelligence? What is this shit?

It is the same thing with Obama speaking against Iran, not our buisness so why should we even care?

I guess i'm using the same argument as the anti-war people but when we find traces of VX gas in Iraq I do say that is a problem. I also think it is a problem when former leaders of Iraq pursue yellowcake.

That is a reason to be scared, rioters being shot are not.

credit · Jul 07, 2009, 10:09 PM // 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shursh

i think he is a politician.

i also think all politicians are full of RED ENGINE.

cool bro
24231545

bhavv · Jul 08, 2009, 07:37 AM // 07:37

Dont forget that people werent shot just for rioting, but also for non violent protests. Injured protesters who made it into a hospital then found themselves arrested after recovery, as well as many of the protesters who were caught.

The Iranian elections were rigged to keep a madman in power who wants to blow Israel off the world map, and continuously blames the West for every problem in their country, and also maintains capital punishments for crimes against the state religions holy book. The people arent just rioting over the election but because they want to get rid of the Islamo-fascist rule that was wrongly bought into power in 1979 in Iran, since when the current mad dictator has been in power.

Sorry if that was too political.

Apparantly, someone who managed to obtain the real election results was conveniently killed before he could release them. Regardless of whether they are a threat to the US or not, they are a threat to their own people, while the governments continue spreading propaganda against the western world.

Free media is also illegal in Iran, many news reporters are arrested, as are foreign reporters. People simply visiting the country are often treated as 'spies of the West', and can find themselves arrested and detained / Imprisoned on an accusation alone.

bhavv · Jul 08, 2009, 07:53 AM // 07:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMSDome

He used faulty intelligence? What is this shit?

It is the same thing with Obama speaking against Iran, not our buisness so why should we even care?

I guess i'm using the same argument as the anti-war people but when we find traces of VX gas in Iraq I do say that is a problem. I also think it is a problem when former leaders of Iraq pursue yellowcake.

That is a reason to be scared, rioters being shot are not.

Many people in Iran are asking for international intervention, but are not getting any help.

The people being shot are NOT rioting, they are protesting peacefully as would be done in any democratic country. The 16 year old girl Neda that was shot dead was simply in her dads car and they got caught in the protests. Being too hot to stay in the car, they decided to step outside, only to end up with the daughter being shot for standing among protesters.

bhavv · Jul 09, 2009, 12:10 AM // 00:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

the fact that rioting ended up in gun violence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMSDome

That is a reason to be scared, rioters being shot are not.

I find killings like these to be a reason to very scared:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=zk6_NZVo1Xs

Significant warning in the video itself, dont watch it if you dont want to see it, but you should.

DreamRunner · Jul 09, 2009, 01:20 AM // 01:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

Free media is also illegal in Iran, many news reporters are arrested, as are foreign reporters. People simply visiting the country are often treated as 'spies of the West', and can find themselves arrested and detained / Imprisoned on an accusation alone.

Any country that plans to censor the internet or has a way to stop information getting out, just leads to disaster of The State having too much control. But, people need to understand how much The State has control over people. It is actually illegal to dance in Iran and from how the election has been rigged, it is not hard to see why a lot of young people want some sort of change. It's funny how scared The State is from people want to change the government and the response is always to take the most extreme action to try and control it.

bhavv · Jul 09, 2009, 09:22 AM // 09:22

They temporarilly banned facebook during the weeks leading up to the election to prevent people sharing information about Ahmadinejad's opponents.

In the last decade, hundreds if not thousands of people have been executed in Iran for either being gay, or a woman having sex outside of marriage - the penalty of which was being stoned to death.

Recently these kinds of killings have prevented by diplomatic efforts and awareness being raised by Iranian immigrants into Western countries, the rate of immigration increased 10 fold since the current sharia rule came into power. I cant remember the frequency of the numbers, but they went from 10k immigrants leaving the country prior to 1979 to 100k afterwards. I think they were annual figures. Of course most people cannot afford to move, or do not want to leave their families. The efforts to overthrow the current regime are mostly efforts among educated university graduates, wheras the usual uneducated muslim who believes in all of the anti Western and anti Israel that support the current government are seen as a minority of people in the country.

The ex-muslim society in the UK led by a secular Iranian woman have recently managed to save many women of unjust penalties from the state of Iran, but of course, news of most cases never gets out due to reporting of such news being illegal too.

Iran will not see a secular government for a very long time now, but a reformist government will help them go a long way to becoming similar to Turkey which is an Islamic state, but with liberal and Western freedom.

The other country which is a key problem to its own people is Saudi Arabia, where recently an elderly woman was sentenced to 100 lashes and 6 months in prison for having two unrelated men buy her two loaves of bread every week. Also a british girl who went to work in S. Arabia was accused of sleeping in the same bed with her employer, a charge which they both denied. But she was still put in jail.

It is illegal for women there to be in the same room, never mind the same bed with an unrelated man.

What a lot of people dont realise about the Iraq war is that many of the people inside Iraq actually welcomed western efforts to bring democracy to their country, but however, the problem being that the hardcore and brainwashed muslims become disillusioned by such efforts and off go the bombs, even in their home countries making the situation there a lot worse off.

The current problems in Iran are similar to when the chinese government sent in tanks to open fire on university students protesting for Democracy. That was seen internationally as a major atrocity, yet Iran currently is not seen as bad as this when they are doing just the same thing, but without any tanks.

Of course if your own government did these things, it definately would concern you very much, as much as it should when occuring in any other country.

DreamRunner · Jul 09, 2009, 09:57 AM // 09:57

Western countries aren't trying to "save" people in the Middle East, I mean just look at how Arabs are portrayed in the entertainment industry in America. I am sure the Iraq war had many benefits towards the U.S, not only having a false premise of starting the war, but I am sure doing the "peace-keeping" job for the oil as well makes it a more likely reason. They've been making movies about Arabs as the antagonist of movies since the 70s' and lets not forget how these portrayal of Arabs in actually seen by people in the Middle-East. You have movies, TV shows and other medias of having Arabs being the "bad" guys again and again.

Just look at the movie Rules of Engagement, it being one of the most anti-Arab movie of all time that came out in 2000. Yet just a year later, we had the 9/11 incident.

Ghost Omel · Jul 09, 2009, 12:28 PM // 12:28

What happened to " Dont put your nose into some one elses bussines"

WE all know that american people and government think they have the right to stuff their yank botties into other countries bussiness and all but for once just others be and worry about your own country -_-.

I gue Iraq is not enaugh and having a puppet government there is just not up to standarts...

The ironic thing is that Every 1 knows about wats happening in Iran and yet No 1 even cared about when Georgia attaked a country next to it littterarly having a full scale war with russian military killing civilians.. While Gerogian PEACE KEEPRES killed their Russian Co-workers right before the major attaks began.. by the way the Tanks, artilery equipment, and training was done and given by US military along with state of the art tanks that were imported there from Ukraine.....look it up and see the aamount of civilian deaths.. it was planned Genocide from Gerorgian side.

Anyway its obvious to see How american mentality is.. "Hey l;te pay attention to middle east completely i mean we can afford for the to have their own governemnt and nuclear fusion.. that makes them equal to us and thats is a nono" -_-

Anyway my opinion

Shursh · Jul 09, 2009, 02:09 PM // 14:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost Omel

What happened to " Dont put your nose into some one elses bussines"

Anyway its obvious to see How american mentality is.. "Hey l;te pay attention to middle east completely i mean we can afford for the to have their own governemnt and nuclear fusion.. that makes them equal to us and thats is a nono" -_-

nuclear power becomes an issue when leaders of said country intend to use it to "blow up" a neighboring country, and say such things in public conferences.

for americans (and most likely other countries), it makes us think "hmm...are we next?"

Ghost Omel · Jul 09, 2009, 02:24 PM // 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shursh

nuclear power becomes an issue when leaders of said country intend to use it to "blow up" a neighboring country, and say such things in public conferences.

for americans (and most likely other countries), it makes us think "hmm...are we next?"

What stops an Iranian president to think that USA, or Russian would blow them up with the nucler weapons they posses now?

It might as well be in self defense measeure.....

Non- the less i cannot disagre with you in any way....it wont stop them making the weapons anywy.. there is alwasy a basement in which yuo could make a nuclear weapon.. just this basement is somewere in the woods and the size or 2 football fields with state of the art equipment sold by the same countries who dontwant them to have the technology -_-

MMSDome · Jul 09, 2009, 06:19 PM // 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost Omel

What stops an Iranian president to think that USA, or Russian would blow them up with the nucler weapons they posses now?

It might as well be in self defense measeure.....

Non- the less i cannot disagre with you in any way....it wont stop them making the weapons anywy.. there is alwasy a basement in which yuo could make a nuclear weapon.. just this basement is somewere in the woods and the size or 2 football fields with state of the art equipment sold by the same countries who dontwant them to have the technology -_-

Because the Iranian president obviously has more sense than you do. The backlash of nuking them would be far worse than what we had before nuking them and the Iranian president realizes that.

The US and Russia do not have crazy dictators such as the one ruling Iran.

Ghost Omel · Jul 09, 2009, 06:30 PM // 18:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMSDome

Because the Iranian president obviously has more sense than you do. The backlash of nuking them would be far worse than what we had before nuking them and the Iranian president realizes that.

The US and Russia do not have crazy dictators such as the one ruling Iran.

Whew.. finally some 1 said what i was hoping for.. i know.. i was just waiting for some 1 to put aside BS and say somethign smart....Devils advocate and all.. Still the less Politicians put their nose in some 1 elses business the better.This case.. you are completely correct though. =)